13 Responses

I think this technology has a great future. However, I still think that ultimately, the responsibility for avoiding collisions lies in the drivers’ hands.

You could put a billion dollars worth of safety and tech equip in a car and that won’t help an idiot driver. We all know the type.

I believe this is a step into progress, even if it’s 10+ years away. I view it as something like the airbag in that at first… it wasn’t perfected. It took a few years and now it’s the standard.

I look forward to seeing where this type of technology goes… but it won’t save the morons on the road. Tweaking a proverb a bit here… “A fool with money/technology is nothing more than a rich/techy fool” in the end.

I believe Jason has hit the nail on the head here with thoughts about the V2V technology. If a person is not a responsible driver this technology will in all probability just add to their false sense of invulnerability and may very well ultimately result in no net gain in overall safety or possibly less for the driving public.

For technology like this to have a chance at making a difference or at least not losing ground in the safety wars ALL cars/vehicles would need to be equipped with it. Then it would have to be maintained in ALL of those vehicles ALL of the time. If your airbag fails to inflate due to a mechanical failure most likely only you will a casualty. If you think you and other cars ALL have V2V type technology onboard and working and they don’t or it is not than not only you but others could be a casualty.

More or less passive safety features, like anti-lock brakes, airbags, seatbelts and crush zones in cars are one thing but V2V type technology would make a lot of people falsely start thinking that they have less responsibility to know what is going around their vehicle out on the road and drive safely.

I drove by a little building on Grant Road the other day that issues Texas drivers licenses. The parking lot was full to overflowing. Every so often I have to go to that building to renew my driver’s license. It is a very long wait in cramped quarters. I think safety could be improved if fees for licenses were increased, the staff and facilities for testing and issuing licenses were improved and if actual driver’s tests were conducted to see if a person can actually drive a car before they are granted a license.

So let’s not keep trying to save ourselves from ourselves with high technology. Let’s concentrate on making sure we have better drivers behind the wheel.

I forgot to mention one important observation about the video you have here Tim. In it the GM spokesperson says that V2V will alert you if someone is in your blind spot and your try to move to the already occupied lane but only “when you put your turn signal on prior to making the lane change”. I would like to ask when was the last time you saw ANYONE use a turn signal before they were going to make a turn let along change lanes. If you did it was probably me. I rest my case against V2V technology. GM would do well to invest the money they are throwing at V2V and instead use it design better looking and more fuel efficient vehicles that would sell.

If this is where GM’s R&D budget is going, then I think that GM suspects that it may not be able to compete with the new crop of auto manufacturers. Instead, it is possibly considering the position of component supplier to those actually manufacturing cars. Those components would be things like safety and high-tech items. Items it considers to have a high profit margin, such as the V2V. Many defunct automobile manufacturers quit building cars but remained in business by reducing their scope and supplying auto components and subassemblies.

When I’m driving a large pickup, SUV or a car with a thick C pillar (i.e. a top-up convertible) I have to be particularly careful before switching lanes. I’d welcome V2V.

And, yes, a system relying on use of turn signals does lose its effectiveness with some drivers.

Posted by: Tim Spell at August 2, 2007 07:27 AM

Tim, I can certainly relate to the need for more help than most sideview mirros offer to let you know some is in your “blind spot” when you want to change lanes. I have made some almost disastrous lane change decision myself because of not seeing another vehicle. However until ALL vehicles had it, and that is not going to happen, I could see a driver getting a false sense of confort that was not warrented if their vehicle did have V2V. They are putting rear view mirrors on some vehicles now to let you know if there is anything behind you like a small child before you back up. I would think supplementing the sideview mirror with the same sort of camera technology would be a much better investment. That way a person with a sideview camera would ALWAYS know it someone was there and make the decision to change lanes to based on actual information. Having V2V in just your car when others around you don’t is a crap shoot as to weather you are makeing a good decision to make that lane change. What do you think of my thought here?

Thanks for the update on some lifesaving technology that appears to be coming. Ditto the comment about people not using their turn signals in Houston. Reminds me of Lynn Ashby who wrote for the Houston Post who theorized that Houston drivers must all have virgin turn signals. If you signal, that seems to encourage other drivers to speed up and cut you off. Hope that this idea comes to fruition…at least some of us will appreciate it.

Tim, I spent 25 years in the technology business and I can tell you that allowing technology to replace, in this case, “just paying attention” is a bad idea. It builds false confidence, it allows bad designs onto the market, it raises costs and reduces reliability.

Just becuse you CAN do it (technologically) doesn’t mean you SHOULD do it. Automatic parallel parking comes to mind……

In the case of this technology (V2V), a passive version would be much preferred to an active version. As was said previously a system that is dependent upon ALL vehicles having the system (in working order, with updated firmware, etc) is not much of a system.

Since a “system” is only as strong as its weakest link, the car next to you without the gadget would invalidate your having spent $5000 on yours….

Perhaps the best driver aid is the “Homer”. If you do something stupid it reaches out and grabs you by the neck and chokes you senseless……

i just found this thread. But V2V is happening. Any kind of assist is welcome. The recent massive shutdown up in Vermont is an example of how this can help. Of course, it isn’t perfect, and it won’t be effective until all cars have it. But as time passes, more cars will have it and each passing year we will become a lot more safe.

Besides, they won’t cost $5000. $200-$300 is about all they will need to spend to get them in a car.